MP Visiting Your Home, Were You Our?

Prior to each General Election the same remarks surfaced, and this time the opportunity came when two politicians commented on a similar subject so I try to think aloud and perhaps try to make some sense and meaning out of them.

I have never grown tired of hearing this....."I only see my MP coming during election times". Mind you now that the WP is occupying several electoral wards, they too are not spared from this unpleasant remarks.

Apparently it has become an expected norm to see MPs doing frequent house-to-house visits apart of their inherent duty of Meet-The-People Sessions. I would think it is fair expectation, but expecting to see your MP visiting you can be quite unreal.

There are some real and practical considerations to this exercise. MPs more often than not have to resort to guessing when is the best day and best time to conduct house-to-house visits in order to reap optimal effectiveness.

Sunday mornings used to be the best time when the whole family gets to be at home together. Not anymore. Sundays have become the best day for families to have a family day out, or even a staycation somewhere over the weekend. Then again there is no magic formula in the guesswork. Whatever else, it seems that PAP MPs are unofficially expected to perform this traditional ritual of house-to--house visit covering the whole constituency at least twice within the electoral term.

Some MPs did extremely well achieving over and beyond the unwritten benchmark. How do you do that?

Before we learn of how these MPs are such high performers in conducting house-to-house visits, we look at the basics.

Starting with a typical 30,000 households constituency and 5 years to finish visiting them twice. Let us say the MP spends 3 hours for each session spending 5 minutes each chatting with residents, that session will reach about 36 households. We'll bring it down to 30 households for easy computation on basis that some homes take a little more time. Let's add another 30 households with no one home, thus not consuming any of the allocated time, that 3 hour session effectively covers 60 households.

One 3 hour house-to-house visit session completes reaching 60 households. To reach the same household twice, you need 2 sessions. 500 sessions to cover entire constituency once, and of course 1000 to cover twice.

If you only conduct one session every weekend, you need 19 years to visit the same household twice, not ruling out the same household with no one home repeats itself. Thus once a week is insufficient, so what some super performers did was to triple the sessions a week, and reduce the time for each household to a negligible handshake that takes no more than a minute.

Thus when Minister Tan Chuan Jin spoke about spending more time to understand the issue, he may not in numbers term finish visiting every household in his constituency.

Am I saying Minister Tan is underperforming? I'll leave it to trash sites to spread the lies, but the truth is he has chosen quality rather than quantity. In real politics, you need quantity more than quality. You need exposure, you need to put your face and finger prints all over the place, and you need to make sure no one can accuse you of not doing your job.

Workers party has chose an efficient way of reaching out to residents. They get banners printed bearing information that the MP will be at a certain location to meet residents for a chit-chat session. Tea and snacks will be served therefore it is called "Tea Session". They took pictures of it and posted the session on Facebook to make sure no one accuses them of not doing anything. It is so much more convenient and relaxed on the part of WP MPs.

But did Minister Tan cared more for politics or the lives of his residents? It means that there will be more people pointing fingers at him for not visiting their house. The comfort and satisfaction coming out of his choice is he gets to asked more question, some may be a little bit more personal. He gets to preserve and protect the privacy of his residents by shielding their problems away from public scrutiny.

Finally, comparing Minister Tan's walking the ground with Yee Jen Jong's 4-year walk, how will these two to be appraised together. Yee said his 4 years of walking the ground is wasted notwithstanding that he is being paid by parliament. There is no requirement that he needs to walk in order to be paid. Maybe he is saying that if he knew Joo Chiat were to be taken away, he would not have spent so much time with residents there. Relationship with these people does not pay.

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

Oppositions Did Nothing To Stop Lies & Abuses

"NO HANDS" do take very different meanings pertaining to our opposition parties.

They have "no hands" in any of the trash sites like the now defunct The Real Singapore, and a host of others, but they will also ensure "no hands" will be there to stop lies and made-up stories from getting to the public.

Not just that. They have never shown their hands in stopping vandalism that damaged public properties, they have never shown their hands in stopping insensitive and disparaging racial and religious remarks that hurts, and they have never shown their hands in stopping anti-social behaviors such as public littering.

In other words by having "No Hands" in deterrent, they are welcoming with open arms many things that Singaporeans would consider not compatible with civilized societies.....such as protest that can lead to law and order breakdown.

So when trash sites jeered at Ms Lee Bee Wah's anti-littering campaign, they welcomed such jeering let alone opposition parties going round picking up rubbish instead of selling newsletters.

We have not heard a single word from opposition parties condemning lies made by trash sites that is counter productive to Singapore's political development such as the attached picture detailed.

No Hands opposition parties are in no way handicapped. The unseen arms that welcome chaos are to be feared.

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

MAKE FUNNY OF MRT BREAKDOWN, NOT FUNNY AT ALL

There is a guy whose moniker Veron Rahim, who could possibly be the blogger behind "anyhowhamtam" posted this :

"Pretty funny to see the PAP fanboys at Fap and other pages falling over themselves trying to deflect blame for yesterday's wonderful experience by SMRT.

Even funnier is how they seem to equate every Govt agency with themselves that they are compelled to issue statements on their behalf." 

Since yesterday's serious train breakdown, potshots against government and SMRT were all over social media. 

There is also no denial that FAP FLOPs were quick to swing into action defending government positions and forming a wall to cushion the volleys of potshots.

What is more funny to me is, a person like Veron Rahim who may be some literary award winner joining the fray of cheap and lowly tit-for-tats with street kids (me included). 

Departing from these meaningless, unhelpful comments trying to gain political coins, there maybe be the real issues that we need confront. 

I have this uneasy feeling that the train breakdown cannot be resolved at all.  If my guesses are true, it is a big big problem that the current way of doing patches won't make the problem go away.  Experts and non-experts alike will demand technical evidence to  what I have just said, and I have none.  It is just gut feeling. 

But I felt what is most important for Singaporeans and those charged with the running of Singapore's train system including the minister's office to realize a sense of reality. 

We can make comparison with systems elsewhere, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London etc etc  We are not the same, and we cannot be the same.  We have to look at the problem in our very own context. 

Are we prepared to face with the reality that the entire train system cannot operate as though it is fresh from the mint?  Are we prepared to accept that to get the train system to function as though it is freshly minted, we have to tear down everything and redo it all over from scratch?  These are two pertinent question to ponder seriously.  The Singapore government fortunately has the ability to do that, fiscally.   

Meanwhile, it would be absolutely unrealistic, and that is why I am calling for a realization of a sense of reality that those charged with running the system not to make promises that the train system will run with the efficiency like freshly minted ones.  Promising the sky is hard to reach. Raising expectations only to face backlashes when expectations cannot be met.

And for Singaporeans, we may have to live with occasional breakdowns as in a way we are living with viruses and diseases that may outbreak anytime.  Train breaking down is not the end of the world, and not everything are attributed to human errors.  Yes we want efficient government and we want efficient public services.  We can ask for, in fact demand tip top performance, but there will be time where tip top performance cannot produce the outcome we desire. 

We can only promise what we can deliver, that we will do our very best and we cannot expect more than what realistically can.

HDB'S DESIGN, BUILD & SELL SCHEME

Instead of being appreciated for putting a stop to the DBSS (Design Build Sell Scheme) offered by the HDB, Minister Khaw Boon Wan now become the target of attacks for the recent spate of troubling news related to the scheme.

To be fair, all these projects were already ongoing before Minister Khaw took over the ministry from his predecessor Mah Bow Tan. The spiraling prices asked for by developers tasked with the scheme attracted particular concern of the minister who then made a quick decision to suspend the scheme indefinitely.

The scheme was introduced in 2005 to offer home buyers an additional choice of housing and lifestyle preference on top of an already wide range of different offers.

It was a good scheme with good intention. What may have caused the scheme to go the wrong way could possibly be to a certain degree its speculative element.

The sites chosen by HDB to be tendered out were choicest locations, definitely better that those earmarked for BTO. Developers engaged private architects to come up with designs that equals any private developments. Units come renovated of which costs are built into the purchase price that in a way did away with additional renovation loan the buyer has to take up. Not forgetting that this is packaged inside HDB's financing scheme that we all know is much cheaper than commercial lending.

I have also speculated that this might be the former minister's intention to eventually turn these developments around somewhat like the HUDC of old and make them private.
When buyers felt that these flats can offer them a capital appreciation faster and at a cheaper outlay, they flocked to the scheme. That triggered developers to sense a strong and growing demand and eventually put in higher bids in upcoming tenders.

This is definitely a bubble getting bigger each day. HDB flats almost reaching a million bucks is in the making, and it simply don't make sense. Why so expensive?

Developers tendered land at at high price but buyers don't think there is any profit potential anymore. Selling price for the units began to fall but developers are still carrying the high cost so in order to mitigate the difference, they try to maximize the number of units and perhaps cut some costs on peripherals.

The problems that we now become so familiar with has to be borne by both developers and buyers proportionately.

HONOURING LEE KUAN YEW

Agree, disagree, or what else? These are voices in this national narrative (if I had not chosen the word incorrectly) or a national conversation. But they do throw some light into what Singaporeans are.

Possessiveness : Once Lee Kuan Yew becomes a monument, it becomes a possession of the people. 38 Oxley too becomes a possession. They can exercise their rights over these possessions. Now they cannot.

Superficial : Quick way of getting things done without much thoughtfulness nor deeper consideration. What else can be better to honour a man than to create a perpetual physical presence so that it cannot be lost in time? It does not take a lot of effort and Singapore has the resources to afford one that no one else in any part of the world can.

Opportunistic : Politicians and others who are aware of such weaknesses and took advantage of these by proposing or supporting such calls that they may stand to gain. The Lee Kuan Yew name brings a lot of goodwill, very valuable.

Hollowness : Looking for a god to worship.

To begin with, 38 Oxley is a private property, and there is a last will of the owner that determines what it should be upon demised. The only special between this and every others is Lee Kuan Yew was and is Singapore's First PM. The people can "unusually" or "misnormally" request state intervention to take possession of this private property, which if it happens to someone else and not Lee Kuan Yew then it would have been an utter abuse of authority.

How to honour Lee Kuan Yew in his very spirit? Those who knew him personally and closed to him would have already found his character too unachievable. Just his discipline alone is beyond our reach let alone his unwavering stand on truth.

But it is in the painful effort of following the man's way of dealing with the world in us and around us that we Singaporeans can sufficiently honour him in the best and acceptable way.
His last books were done not in the best of physical conditions, but we can now look back an marvel at his tenacity and perseverance to finished those books before allowing himself to succumb to infirmity.

We ask : Why? What is so important about another one or two more books? Haven't he already put his thoughts in the previous books?

His Life are in all of his books being put together, and they must come complete. If only we understood him well, and treasure the true treasures hidden in his books that he may be honoured in the most appropriate manner.

If only I can read what Lee Kuan Yew has to say, he would have said thus : Don't look to my house for answers. Don't worship my statue for blessings. Don't waste my name in meaningless airports or parks that will degenerate into no more than another name for another place.

Look into my books and I will be very very honoured

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/dr-lee-wei-ling-honouring-the-late-mr-lee-kuan-yew-honou#sthash.sYiGQnvU.gbpl

DOES THE PAP HAS A SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY?

During the hustling of 2011 General Elections, supporters of the opposition were having a field day in social media and practically dominated the discourse over internet.

The PAP was not prepared for such tsunami like attacks, and its supporters were thrown into disarray not knowing how to respond. They were outnumbered and grossly ridiculed.

The PAP had believed and I think they still do that the real battle is on the ground. Social media does not accurately represent true sentiments of the electorates vis-a-vis the silent majority. They are not wrong except that they underestimated the significance of what dominating social media and the internet means.

Very quickly, PAP supporters picked up the ropes of social media discourse, thanks to social media group Fabrication About the PAP. They set about exposing unverified statements and blatant lies that opposition supporters created to win over at discussion platforms.

By and large the PAP supporters had done well but in my opinion are still lacking behind the opposition supporters. Why is this so?

On the side of the opposition, they had a number of well known academics, historians, lawyers and prominent figures in the arts fraternity and bloggers who have no qualms about being public about their support for the opposition, some cloaked in the grandiose of democracy, freedom of expression etc but nevertheless opposition in spirit.

Capable, sharp minded similars on the side of the PAP prefers to remain neutral or anonymous. There are not many, perhaps none that writes with the same convincing power comparable with the adversaries. Gladly of late, certain ex-diplomats has entered the foray giving the PAP side a much needed shot in the arm. But still, he is not one who engages in day to day battle.

The game changer came with the demise of PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew. The "Silent Majority" armed with moral uprightness went into battle and started slaughtering every disrespectful comment about Lee Kuan Yew.

The opposition camp was caught unprepared and retaliated with some half-baked commentaries that don't make sense to ordinary educated folks. Their logic and arguments were incongruent.

For the opposition camp that habitually wins most of arguments through crooked logic now find themselves standing on a shaky platform, and spared no effort in trying to prevent it from coming down disgracefully. They started commentaries attacking the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew.

But this did not work, so they changed tactic by honouring Lee Kuan Yew and disparage Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong instead.

Will this work? This does not depend on how well they craft their attacks but instead on how well the public, in particular the moderates as to how they analyze these commentaries. By conventional wisdom they should win because analyzing matters takes efforts and most people prefer to jump quickly to conclusion by way of the superficial. But we cannot rule out that these moderates are now fairly emotionally charged and in the words of Lee Kuan Yew, their adrenalin are so charged that there is tremendous amount of energy in them to take the trouble to analyze and make intelligent response.

Whether PAP supporters have the strategy and/or the will to do a concerted counter attack in the face of this strategic advantage, a special gift from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is left to be seen.

TODAY WE DISCUSS ABOUT TRADE OFFS

Western media were talking about trade-of and then Calvin Cheng went to tell them off.

Because of that, Donald Low, a lecturer from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy was not impress. He said Calvin Cheng deserved a response, and of course that invited a counter response from Calvin Cheng.

But what the hell trade-offs are they all arguing about?

The story goes that those Westerners, angmo writers were somewhat upset about the accolades and honour Western leaders are showering on one man Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's No.1 Prime Minister but their No.1 hated person.

Lee Kuan Yew was no fanboy of the Western media, and vice versa. Doing away with diplomatic protocol and courtesy, the West has always believed that Singapore is so small that their media alone, if not add a couple of NGOs would be sufficient to teach and tell Singapore how to run a country. But for Lee Kuan Yew, it had always been such that if you want to step on my holy ground you better remove your stinking shoes or else I'll kick you hard at where it pains you most.

But to Singapore and to Singaporeans, Lee Kuan Yew is the man. It is not about what is written all over the world, neither is it about what is being taught in the Ivy league.

Singaporeans knew the man via real life experience. You tell them Lee Kuan Yew is a dictator, but what they know of him was a strict father. You tell them Lee Kuan Yew restricts their lives and movements, but these to them were necessary household discipline. You tell them not to listen and believe in everything Lee Kuan Yew says and to them Lee Kuan Yew had always been a man of his word.

So now even as Singaporeans are yet to recover from a state of shock and great loss, you Western media come along and insult the man whom Singaporeans fondly call Founding Father? You want to tell them that all the things Lee Kuan Yew did for them were nothing but sinister exchange?

Hey buddy....take note of this. During the time the name Lee Kuan Yew was first introduced, Singaporeans had to head to streets of Chinatown to get a letter written to relatives in China. Look at the pictures that are proudly hung up on my walls in the living room, and please count how many mortarboards there are. Go round the neighbourhood and you will know we are not unique.

What trade-off? Look at me, do I look like I've been imprisoned and tortured like those appearing in documentaries over RT TV? Singapore's prison is for criminals, not ordinary folks. Have I ever been taken to court for grumbling about parking fine and speeding? No, not when I pay up in time. Are you suggesting that Singaporeans should not be paying fine for parking or speeding offences?

Yes I heard Low Thia Khiang mentioned about Singaporeans being sacrificed for Lee Kuan Yew's policies, and society paid a price for that. I am not sure if Mr Low was talking about me. Yes I was asked to sacrificed, but I was doing it for my family. But in all honesty, we never knew we had in fact sacrificed. Practically everyone lived the same way.

The house we used to live in in Toa Payoh was rented from the HDB, It was small but there were basic services like water and electric was there. We had to squat to do our business if you know what I mean. But comparing with our previous abode, a rented room in a large house in Ah Hood Road where at least more than 20 families sharing two toilets and bathrooms, this little rented house was luxury. Was that a sacrifice? If you want to compare to the executive condo we are living in now, that may sound a lot of discomfort no doubt.

Oh yes, I guess you may also want to know about General Elections in the 60s. There were no less than 10 political parties and independent candidates to choose from. Political activities these days cannot compare. Did you experience fighting between parties? Those days political freedom wasa in their own hands. Only those with guns or associated with guns were later arrested. Some of them ran away to Western countries and tell stories about us. How much do they know by living in advance countries?

So for goodness sake, don't talk too much about trade-off. We know better. Yes there is a price to pay for everything, and what we see today, how we live today are bought with a willing price, not a trade-off.

This footnote is added for Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Maybe others may have questioned your sincerity in offering your tribute to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after listening to your speech in Mandarin I do not doubt your sincere tribute. The only thing you did,and I can understand that you need to as leader of your party and the opposition as a whole is to make a dent in the PAP.

While you praised Lee Kuan Yew for his tenacity and relentless efforts in building Singapore, you tried to differentiate Mr Lee from the PAP by rejecting the PAP's contribution and influence in bringing about progress and prosperity for Singapore. But your attempt sticked out like a sore thumb. Lee Kuan Yew and PAP cannot be separated nor differentiated. They are synonymous or perhaps homologous.

We do understand the need to differentiate Mr JB Jeyaratnam or even Mr David Marshall from the Workers Party, or do the same with Mr Chiam See Tong with Singapore Democratic Party. You simply cannot do that with Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.

So your recognition to Lee Kuan Yew having indeed brought about progress and prosperity to Singapore by rallying Singaporeans to unite, it is unequivocal that the same recognition is on the PAP's one party rule in unity. Please bear in mind that when Singaporeans rally around Lee Kuan Yew, they are also rallying around PAP.

As to your reference to sacrifices of Singaporeans, I mentioned earlier that we sacrificed for the sake of our families and our future. We were never interested in power not holding political offices. We just wanted a secured future. To those whose ambitions were to seek political office, they do so for their own ambitions. To each his own. Do I owe them for their sacrifices....certainly not.

TRIBUTE TO LEE KUAN YEW

My humble tribute to the man who gave his whole life to Singapore.

Cry my friend, cry if you may
For your tears are precious this very day
Let struggles and changes come to mind
Of wonderous legacies he left behind

He took a people back from foreign hands
with which he blushed the world with a glorious land
Of penniless folks and an old fishing port
Amidst the gray ocean now, a sparkling red dot

Before enemies he withstood their blows
he won lasting friends out of many foes
He captured visions that most cannot dream
to radiate the world like a beacon's beam

Cry now my friend cry with no fear,
For the due that we owe to a friend so dear
He walked streets of danger unsure of return
Paving ways of peace for generation to generation

For Singapore he lived, for Singapore he die
He frees himself now to be with his beloved wife
FROM SINGAPORE WITH LOVE, to whom we say THANK YOU!
Now and Forever, dearest LEE KUAN YEW

CAN LEE KUAN YEW UNITES SINGAPORE AGAIN?

Can Lee Kuan Yew do it again, even in his absolute passive state?

Those opposing the PAP seems to think so. They want the Lee family, PM Lee Hsien Loong in particular to pull off the plug to what's keeping LKY living and let him go. That's only one of their antics. They also pour scorn on Singaporeans sending well wishes and praying for Mr Lee calling this uncalled for, naive and wishful and a waste of time.

Lee Kuan Yew is synonymous with PAP, the party he formed and led Singapore out of colonial rule into independence and subsequent prosperity as one of the richest countries in the world.

Those opposing the PAP government hates to hear people calling LKY the founding father of Singapore. They had reasoned that he alone cannot make Singapore what it is today thus in a way accepting that Singapore's prosperity is a due to the PAP.

The torrent of political activities happening in Singapore in recent years have much to do with Mr Lee's waning health. Lee Kuan Yew still commands the adoration, if not the allegiance of many Singaporeans.

He is best remembered for the long and tedious task of cleaning up the filth of Singapore River among other campaigns like Clean and Green City, Mosque Building Fund, Stop At Two, and Queuing Up. Many of these are "carrot and stick" ways of cultivating good citizenship.

But the greatest deed that is superlatively remembered, feared and hated by some is his "cleaning up the filth" in the "Political River". Today people look at it as something inhuman to put people in jail, bankrupting opponents etc etc. But to Lee Kuan Yew, the nation he had used his life into fighting for freedom and independence has always been a delicate and vulnerable child that needs protection.

The child needs to be strong and able to defend himself against bigger bullies, hence he initiated National Service. The child needs proper education and the skills hence the two pronged approach to education.

Nothing should be standing in the way to nurturing the child into a useful personality that not just able to stand up on his own but also stands out remarkably. Thus the removal of residues of blockades and booby traps that remained after the warring period were necessary for a smooth and trouble free growth path.

Singapore was thus able to free itself from Communist Ideology of that era. Lee Kuan Yew rallied Singapore through the years of being cheap labours ourselves, struggle ourselves out of hardship, and today we are able to turn the table around and become employers of cheap labour instead.

I ask again....can Lee Kuan Yew do the same as he did in uniting Singapore and bringing Singapore into a period of peaceful and prosperous living even in his passive state?

I think this is what Lee Kuan Yew is already doing right now. His lying on one of the thousands of beds in SGH allows us to reflect on what he has set forth to do for Singapore more than 50 years ago. We track backwards to the years when our parents were struggling to get us a good education and put us in good stead against a challenging and competitive global market place.

It is impossible for a man like Lee Kuan Yew to give unless Singapore is united, and from his bed in SGH's ICU he is once again rallying Singaporeans to unite and face off with challenges that hinders our path to growth and survival. When we stop growing, we stop to survive.

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

THE AHPETC AGO REPORT

WINNING THE ALJUNIED GRC

I can vividly remember during the hustings of 2011 General Elections, the Workers Party A Team consisting two-and-all of its key leaders Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim tagging along three others was challenging Aljunied GRC. History well recorded, their gamble of show-hand had rewarded them with a historical breakthrough in Singapore politics. No opposition party has ever taken a Group Representative Constituency since its inception.
That seals the deal. People of Aljunied GRC did not just voted for the Workers Party, they voted for democracy in Singapore.  Singapore needs more oppositions in parliament.
Besides speaking on behalf of Singaporeans as one of their promised duties, they are also responsible for managing and maintaining common areas in the precincts of Aljunied GRC, Hougang and later on Punggol East where PAP MP Michael Palmer resigned and WP's Lee Li Lian won the By-Elections.

The show-hand tactic may not have worked if it was not accompanied by branding it as a national election zeroed in on Aljunied. The call was.."This is not a local election. This is not about Aljunied GRC alone. This is about Singapore, about democracy in Singapore."




HIGH PROFILE ISSUES IN AHPETC


There were a number of high profile row between the AHPETC and the government ever since then. The town council was being accused for lying with regards to cleaning of hawker centres by asking for extra charges where cleaning of high ceiling areas.  They were also accused of keeping silent about major issues in parliament. The town council was also brought to court for organizing trade fairs without a permit issued by the National Environment Agency.  Then the issued of it not submitting its reports pertaining to arrears on Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and for allowing it to pile. It also has not been fully complying in the submitting of its financial reports. And last of all, the just released Auditor General's report on gross lapses in managing public funds that sparked heated debates inside and outside of parliament.



STRANGE POLITICAL SITUATION

It is inevitable that the Workers Party will face teething problems with managing and maintaining a combined township of seven constituencies. A weight lifter would need to have his weights gradually increased and not by seven times at one go.

Mr Low had pleaded that the WP faced problem with shopping around for a managing agent to manage the town after they won the elections and no companies except FMSS was interested.

I was just wondering behind my mind that what if other companies did participate in AHPETC's open tender, what kind of result that would produced? Or worse, what if no companies; not even FMSS put in a bid.  Will the constituency that WP won in the elections be left is a very sorry state with no services provided?

The last scenario was unlikely because there was an incumbent managing agent and all its supporting services there, and previous chairman Ms Cynthia Phua had promised a smooth handover. The PAP will not, at all cost be seen as sacrificing residents' interest for no political gain at this critical time. It seems all was well handed over except for the accounting software system that led to the beginning of a series of spats.

There was no agreement between AHPETC and Action Information Management (AIM) the service provider of the town council management software. And AIM became yet another convenient politicized item for buying over the software developed by 14 PAP town councils and then leased its use back to the respective town councils and that somehow also caused the PAP to lose Punggol East subsequently.

So did PAP pressure companies not to participate in WP's tender for estate managing agent?

Was AIM set up just to sabotage WP so that it will not be able to carry out its management smoothly?

Two key factors that Mr Low had without direct reference as strange politicized situation pertaining to transition. It really sounds like Mr Low abhors such kind of political underhands if proven true. On hindsight it really makes the PAP looks silly had they really applied these tactics to sabotage the WP.

Whatever, the strange political situations Mr Low complained about strangely had worked perfectly in the WP's favour. The WP gets to work with its long standing partner who were former employees of the Hougang Town Council, and the WP had leveraged on AIM being a $2/- company and purportedly owned indirectly by the PAP to gain much political points.


EXPERIENCE MATTERS

Mr Low also cited a not too far fetched scenario that it is prerequisite for an opposition party aspiring to be the next government needs to have ready an army of civil servants. I took Mr Low's political swipe at the PAP government 'in perspective".

Reading what Mr Low said in context, a political party needs to be experienced to run a country. This runs contrary to people who says any political can be government and anybody can be Prime Minister after removing the PAP because the civil service will still be functioning as usual.

Mr Low cannot be talking about managing and maintaining of facilities because he also mentioned that AHPETC is comparable to PAP run town councils in this aspects.  And credit must go to where it is deserved.

The official chart indeed shows as Mr Low mentions that the AHPETC is comparable to PAP run town councils in the facilities management aspect. Neither Mr Low nor his fellow WP parliamentarians; as well as FMSS the managing agent are incapable nor inexperienced.

Such technical services are aplenty and can be bought at very competitive rates and there are no lack of companies willing to take on contracts that pays well and prompt. Therefore the Ministry of National Development had found AHPETC relatively, and of course comparably well managed, except for "Arrears Management" and "Corporate Governance".

Does experience matters with arrears management and corporate governance? Mr Low seems to have adopted the position that it does. Given that Mr Low had been managing the Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) for twenty years; wouldn't twenty years be sufficient even if these needs experience to perfect? One would be able to tell whether someone is brought up to be courteous and well mannered even at their teen.

Arrears management is a common sense discipline and nothing to do with experience. You don't need experience to know that someone owes you money, and that you need to get it back, and that leads to corporate governance. If you recognized that these arrears ultimately are not your money, even if you chose to be kind to those owing, you are still duty bound to recall whatever is owed.

Corporate governance too is a common sense discipline and requires whether you want to put that into practice or not. All things may look absolutely legal, but it may just not seem right. Knowing well that certain actions are not right to do and do it regardless and irrespective is against the principle of corporate governance.

Can the person approving payments be the same person receiving the money? Is this a responsible act especially when it is about public funds?

The rule is there that sinking funds cannot be used for any other purpose that what is stated, and it was done regardless and irrespective. This is not about being inexperience. This is being insouciant and iniquitous. Heck to the rules, and heck to the principles. such behaviors resides in the persons, not the system. Corporate governance is a reflection of the people running the system, and the flaw is not whether the system needs improvement or not.


WHAT ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE?

Let's revisit the first para about the WP winning the last general elections on a "national agenda" that Singapore needs more oppositions in parliament. This is not about local issue, but the nation needs to progress in democracy and the nation needs more opposition in parliament.

The story the PAP was telling residents, and in particular Mr Lee Kuan Yew's unceremonious statement that Aljunied residents will live to repent for voting the WP in was your town will suffer.

These two contrasting stories presented during the election by the confronting parties are once again put before us, not just residents of Aljunied GRC, but Singaporeans.

WP's story had Aljunied GRC residents sacrificing their personal good for a "big picture" and "big hearted" mission of achieving democracy for Singapore.  PAP's story of a badly managed town did not sell well and was even taken as a threat, a fear tactic as often touted, and dismissed totally.

So what really matters to Singaporeans most, especially in the light of what happened to AHPETC?

Is it about having democracy and more opposition in parliament at all cost?  Put it in another way, do we want to vote out the PAP at all cost?

The AHPETC saga has given us some indication as to what we can expect out of the opposition. It also gives quite a frank and honest appraisal of themselves by themselves. They showed us who they are and what they are.

The price tag for having more oppositions in parliament is clearer now than ever.

What price are you willing to pay?

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

MINISTER SALARY

POLITICAL GAME OF SALARY

The thorn that inflicts pain in the PAP in the coming general election, and for that matter any general election is not the CPF issue that landed blogger Roy Ngerng in trouble, it is the issue of Minister Salary.  Foreign Talents being the other.

Minister Salary & Foreign Talents touches the nerves of "Unfairness" in what deems most sensitive to most ordinary Singaporeans, their income.  The Workers Party calls it "elitist" while the Singapore Democratic Party calls it "Unethical". Their supporters, "immoral", "shameful", and "robbers of people's money" etc etc.

The issue of ministerial salary was hotly debated in parliament, and the government had also taken steps to address the negative perception with a reduction in salary in the wake of public disquiet.  But the oppositions still believe the salaries of ministers are still way too high, where foreign governments are paid only a fraction comparably. They argued that political office should not be a lucrative career path for a selected few but a noble calling of which the remuneration should reflect the noble sacrifice one is called to serve.

The government, namely the Prime Minister had defended the pay packages in that it has to be attractive enough for good people to come forward to serve Singapore.  This response had brought about more jeer than cheer. The oppositions proponed that either the calling was not noble enough for good people to sacrifice, and/or that the crop of ministers are not up to the noble calling where for they are only motivated by high salary.

No explanation can be accepted because this in reality is not about millions in terms of numbers, but millions in terms feelings.  A million dollar can be both extravagant as well in gross insufficiency, whichever way you want to paint it and whichever way you get to perceived it.

I think it is also important to note at this point that this article is not about whether it is right or wrong for Singapore's ministers to be paid what they are getting now, but to ponder if our assessment of it had been "Fair" or otherwise.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS PAID LESS

Countering, the government had maintain that comparing pay packages of Singapore government and that of foreign governments is both impractical and unfair. Undeclared perks and advantages aside, cost and standard of living are remarkably different.  The available talent pool too is comparing the Pacific Ocean with Jurong Lake.  They have abundant supply of well trained talents, let alone many of them already have well established sources of income behind them.

Ugly or dirty as the words may be, Singapore can only afford career ministers. This is an absolute "Unfair Disadvantage" we have in our hands.

There is really no "Fairness" in comparing what foreign government are paid, in particular the Western countries with much longer history and nation building can only be found in history books.


POLITICAL SERVICE IS A CALLING

Between the crook and the haloed saint, what is a practical and sensible pay package should ministers be remunerated? Is there a better, fairer formula than to be a fraction lower than the best paid individuals in Singapore?

In perspective the "Nation" is the apex of all enterprises of Singapore the country. The Nation flourishes, all other enterprises flourish, and if the Nation fails, all else fail.  Thus the paramount importance and responsibility laid upon the shoulders of those tasked with keeping the Nation up and preventing it from failing.

Lives and livelihood of all citizens are rested in the hands of a few men and women whose job is to make sure we have food on our table, a roof over our head, our safe passages day in and out, and we don;t get bullied by others who think they have better muscles. They devoted themselves to serving Singapore and its people, but to call them servants derogates the dignity that belongs to every individual Singaporeans for which they serve.

Shouldn't these be rewarded accordingly and compatibly with the heavy responsibilities that come with the job?

However, most people don't or are unable to see or even imagine the intensity of work that these ministers do.  The ministers have themselves to blame for painting a picture of themselves as no more than experts in cutting ribbons. Citizens never get to feel how important and heavy is the job of a minister.

It is commonly believed that anybody can be a minister where the civil servants are those doing the real job.  I supposed the rapid and frequent changes of governments in certain countries have created such an impression.  It is not untrue that institutions will remain even if there is a change of government but civil servants do not have to answer to the people why things fail, or worst of scenario why the country fails. Who gets the brunt when the MRT slowed or stalled altogether? It is Lui Tuck Yew, not the Permanent Secretary of the ministry.  Even if Desmond Kwek gets dragged into the blame game, it ultimate traces back to the government for putting him there.

Was the blame of freak flooding borne by PUB or the senior civil servants of the ministry of Environment and Water Rsources?  No it is Vivian Balakrishnan who takes the lashes.

But of course these ministers can in turn bang tables on their civil service colleagues, but five years time it is the political office holders that will face their real bosses.  Singapore needs strong political leaders because we have a very strong civil service.  If you may, this is a power unit unto itself.  A weak government will not be able to stand up to the strong will of powerful civil servants, and civil servants are not robots void of ambitions and ego.  Thus far the present government had a well balanced relationship with the civil service, weeding out any impropriety as a means of maintenance as well as deterrence.

It is not unfamiliar to notice discontented civil servants with ambitions beyond their jobs.  Many left to pursue political office.  Civil servants need not oblige their political bosses if their bosses lack the capability and strength to define a constructive working relationship.

Singapore has become a niche exporter of "Governance Software" with proven effectiveness and marketability. The Singapore government has made a "success story" of itself being able to consistently produce results that advanced countries were unable to.  Our governing system is sought after and not exactly replicated but applied to countries that have seen it working.  In that sense, the salaries of those who produce these "governance Software" cannot be non-reflective of its success, can it?

Ultimately salaries needs to be symmetrical to the job. Every job in Singapore is noble and honourable, be you a teacher, a cleaner, a banker, and each has its own portion of sacrifice.  Why then should ministers bear more monetary sacrifices than any other when the weight on their shoulder is so much heavier.

It is not the case where the country is deep in an abyss of debt, nor the country is unable to provide jobs, home, and safety for its citizens.  It would have been justifiable to question about high salary if the country needs to borrow or print more money to pay for its programme, neither is the case. Maybe these did happen in countries where their ministers are paid lower, but that is being symmetrical either.

This issue has no impact at all on Singaporean lives, but plain, pure politicking.

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

THE POLITICAL HAZE BY CHAN CHUN SING & CHEE SOON JUAN

The haze started with Minister Chan Chun Sing in a statement rebutting Huffington Post for publishing two of SDP politician Chee Soon Juan's articles criticizing the government.  In it, M-Chan had called Chee a "political failure" detailing some of Chee's past failings.

Why the rebuttal and to whom is M-Chan is rebutting?

I can't see it as prima facie where the obvious target is HuffPost, what for?  The logic didn't follow either. Telling HuffPost that they are giving considerable but undeserved space to Chee, and correcting them for believing Chee is a weighty political figure?  Unbelievable.  You are only asking to be slapped on the face.  How HuffPost allocates its space and to whom is none of you Chan Chun Sing's business, neither it is Singapore government's businesss.  After all, even though Singaporeans do have access to HuffPost, its reach are largely foreigners.  Again, telling them not to publish Chee's articles  is as good as telling Charlie Hebdo not to draw satirical cartoons.

I see it more like the Chinese stratagem  "声东击西", making lots of noise on the Eastern front but invading the West.  It's a tactical distraction that seems like hitting out at HuffPost, but in fact targeting Chee.  That was exactly how it looks like, at least on paper.

Then again what is there to gain or prevent from losing by hitting out at Chee? There is no value in attacking Chee as some of his supporters commented online, "If Chee Soo Juan is already a political failure and a loser, why does a cabinet minister need to go through the trouble attacking him publicly?" Unless the minister really thinks that Chee could be a threat.  No more than a week ago the hint was sent out from the SDP camp that they could possibly contest Tanjong Pagar GRC in the coming general elections.  Could this be M-Chan's preemptive strike to dent SDP's firepower?  This bear some resemblance to another classic tactic "抛砖引玉", throwing a piece of crude brick to lure a valuable piece of jade.  M-Chan's true target audience are Singaporeans.  He leveraged on the opportunity given by Chee's post in HuffPost and raised the spectre of Chee being an unreliable person by detailing his failures and wrongdoings.  Thus he can make some headway in the minds of prospective voters.

Did it work?

Not quite clear-cut though.  Some in the public-relations & media circles had labelled M-Chan's move as clumsy.  Some of the boo boos were already mentioned above, but mitigated away for their tactical reasons.  Still this open salvo played out like an unguarded fort for Chee to launch a full scale retaliation, and he did.

Calling Chee a "political failure" and a "loser" falls right into what Chee had wanted it to happen, that is his constant decrier that the PAP repeatedly uses underhanded name calling to discredit oppositions instead of engaging in matured debates.  One point to Chee here.

The political terrain is no longer a place for name calling.  Singaporeans seem to have a great sense of fairness, but more like a great sense of unfairness.  Whichever way, name calling is a no no, even though opposition supporters online have been using it freely and rampantly.

If there is really a need to find the best description to address Chee, it is safer to call him a "Liar" than calling him a "Failure".  Lies can be proven, but a "Failure" can only be determined on the day he dies, but Chee is still up and kicking.

So Chee mounted a hearted defense.

He denied allegations of sacrificing Singapore by writing on foreign media articles critical of Singapore's policies and politics.  He put it such that PAP and Singapore are not the same, and he is criticizing PAP and not Singapore.  He even revealed that the Straits Times refused to publish his writings and he has to resort to putting them on foreign media.  All these helped him scored well, particularly to younger Singaporeans who find him cool.  The PAP was apparently out manoeuvred and beaten..

Not yet.

While denying that he had sacrificed Singapore in his articles, but were merely critical of the PAP, he went into alleging that Lee Kuan Yew was in fact the one who sacrificed Singapore. He alluded that Lee had likened Singaporeans to "indolent animals" in the National Geographic article of which Lee did not said that at all.  Here's the government's transcript of the same article, provided by The Online Citizen that helped exposed Chee's yet again deceptive means of using "decoys".

In reality he does not need to refer to the NatGeo interview and that all else had sufficiently supported his denial of any wrongdoing.  But it was his hatred for Lee Kuan Yew that he found this opportunity of taking a swipe at Lee too tempting and irresistible.  He fell into his own trap by making that innuendo about Lee Kuan Yew. Check out the two links provided above and judge it for yourself without prejudice and see if Lee Kuan Yew had indeed sell out Singaporeans during his interview with NatGeo.

So finally Chee Soon Juan had himself to blame for failing to live up to the high standard he set for politicians including himself, and acting exactly as what M-Chan Chun Sing had clumsily painted him to be.  His defense collapsed like domino pieces with his underhand tactics.

SENGKANG COLUMBARIUM - WHO WINS?

IF THE GOVERNMENT RETRACTS

Assuming now, that Minister Khaw Boon Wan has directed URA and HDB to retract the tender for the Sengkang land for administrative and procedural review, what does that signals?

Who shall we award the trophy to as ultimate winner in this tussle?

I would suggest that residents of Sengkang who made their displeasure known not to celebrate that they have triumphed over the authorities.  It certainly bears resemblance of a tiny "People's Power" but read the situation with care...."It is not".  Remember that the fracas began with residents' unhappiness with the possibility of a Chinese Temple housing niches of the deceased and worse still, conducting funeral services within the premises.  While having funeral services is no longer an issue anymore, the housing of niches within the temple is not negotiable.

Why the tender was awarded to a profit-centred entity was never the original contention by residents till it was picked up later on by others to lend weight to the challenge.  Invariably this has become the sore thumb that seemingly requires immediate attention.

As it was mentioned in my previous blog the PAP government has a firm stand that it does not bow to populist demand big or small, and in this case the policy to allow niches to be integrated into place of worship is consistent with URA's planning policy as well as being a broadly accepted practice by communities across Singapore.

SHORT HISTORY OF NICHES

Why niches are a necessary part of many Chinese temples and why the government supported this religious practice?  Many temples in Singapore are part of our history, and not just history but also testimonial to the development of civilization and culture Singapore. Temples sprouted up from clannish, dialect, or even kampung origins. Temples were also meeting place for early migrants to seek mutual help, spiritual refuge, and social connections.  

Niches in temples was a necessary part of Singapore's particularly so for many who could not afford the price of a burial ground.  It is all about ancestral sacrifices for the betterment of the descendants, and about reverence and filial piety that anchors deep in Chinese tradition in Singapore.

Urban development has uprooted many of such historical temples and many of them too small and ill financed to continue their benevolent services had to merge or ceased to exist fostering the ashes of the deceased to bigger temples.  When burial becomes impractical in land scarce Singapore, the government built and operate columbariums to house niches for descendants to pay their respect and to keep family bonds intact.  

Urban development had also resulted in burial grounds being exhumed, and one prominent case in time was the acquisition of Kwong Wai Siu Pek San Teng burial grounds and this is where Bishan estate now stands.  A piece of land was given to the association of Cantonese clans to build a columbarium to house ancestral remains as well as providing for the future.

So many of these niches found in temples were there since history, and as temples continue to be relocated and the population of deceased continues to increase, more space will be needed to render such benevolent services to the community.

Therefore to most Chinese, to show discontent towards the housing of niches invariably demonstrates irreverence to our ancestors, disregard to their sacrifices and a contempt to tradition.

WINNING & LOSING

But it remains that the perimeters of tenders for place of worship need a hard review, and if possible immediate rectification if found wanting.

So if and when the government decides to retract the tender and rectify the perimeters of tender for place of worship, who is set to be seen as a winner and who is the loser?  Obviously if there happens to be a 'political motive" somewhere in this fracas, being a winner or a loser stakes a significant meaning to the outcome, but that would be the most undesirable outcome.

Winning and Losing should never be part of Singapore's administrative life where political gains and losses overshadow real needs and practical solutions.  If winning and losing becomes the main consideration, it forces parties to act irrationally and the ultimate losers are the people of Singapore.

It is only good for Singapore, its people when the government is willing to listen, respond rightly, and appreciated by the people that there is truly a two-way traffic between Singaporeans and the government that is running smoothly for the benefits of all.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

AM I CHARLIE ?  Who is Charlie?

French people locked hands to condemn the brutal killing of twelve people, some of whom are not even part of Charlie Hebdo's satirical publishing outfit shouting "God is Great" even as the world questions "Why did not God stop such atrocities from happening?"  

I was attempting a question to myself : "What if we do away with all religion, its commandments, its traditions, and its rituals, will humankind still go after each other's throat?"  Sadly the answer I had so far is not what I had hope to arrive at and humankind will still go after each other's throat.......to settle the intolerance of difference, and also to force on or coerce others into being similar.

Religion has become so contentious, and differences become so wide that in the big ways people go to war, and in smaller ways they sue each other in court.  Breakaway groups sprouted up all over with hyper emphasis on specific doctrines or rituals that are mere part of what the entire religion is founded upon.  Their religious mission becomes fragmented parts instead of a harmonized whole.

But in the first place, religion is supposed to help put order into a continuously populating world, and in a way slows down the pace of self destruction by pursuing good, yet there are people who are against having religion not knowing that by being anti-religion they have invariably created another religion and contributing to the ever increasing differences and dissimilarities. Diversity is not a need but a result to live with yet these days we worship the sacredness of diversity and enshrined upon the alter.

Had not for those working for Charlie Hebdo try to make a mockery of another religion so that theirs can look better and more powerful, their fate could well be different and live to enjoy more.  Had not the killers took religious authority upon their own hands to settle the differences, they would not have invited the world to point their guns at them.

So when the French people proclaims in solidarity JE SUIS CHARLIE, are these people uniting in the religion that Charlie Hebdo is proliferating or is it really something else?  

They just seem too in a hurry to unite, and too eager to let their solidarity be known and JE SUIS CHARLIE is already there and it sounds sexy enough.

As the dust settles, CHARLIE didn't seems quite right.  Those guys are bloody provocateurs and they brought it upon themselves taking along the innocents.  I AM NOT CHARLIE!  Charlie is a rogue that creates problem that others had to bear with them.

Why was there no condemnation for Charlie?  Why is the one that says "Shoot Me" less culpable that the one that answered "OK I shoot you?"

What is that hidden fear that people dare to condemn unbridled freedom of expression?  Is there something more fearful than to have a bullet in the head?

People seems to be supporting and condemning all the wrong things.

They supported those who sow discord and perpetrated hate n their choice of JE SUIS CHARLIE as symbol for solidarity.

By rallying against Muslims, they are perpetuating a conflict that based on misguided understanding, and instead persecuting those who stood for Peace.

I CONDEMN HATE KILLING.

I CONDEMN THOSE WHO SPREAD HATE IN THE NAME OF EXPRESSION FREEDOM!

I CONDEMN THOSE WHO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS BY WHATEVER MEANS.

I AM NOT CHARLIE!